kernel-source vs. kernel-sourcecode (please revert)
zaitcev at redhat.com
Wed Jun 16 16:00:21 UTC 2004
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:18:22 -0400
Aaron Bennett <aaron.bennett at olin.edu> wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >The kernel-doc documentation explains it for 2.6,
> >if your module is called foo.c you make a Makefile with
> >obj-m := foo.o
> >in it, and do
> >make -C /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build SUBDIRS=$PWD modules
> >to build your module.
> Where is that?
> [root at burton kernel-doc-2.6.6]#
> [root at burton kernel-doc-2.6.6]# fgrep -li "make -C /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build" *
Aaron is right. What the kbuild/modules.txt actually documents is:
Often modules are developed outside the official kernel. To keep up
with changes in the build system the most portable way to compile a
module outside the kernel is to use the kernel build system,
kbuild. Use the following command-line:
make -C path/to/kernel/src SUBDIRS=$PWD modules
It does NOT document /lib/modules/`uname -r`, because it is a
distribution specific convention. Expirienced developers "know"
how to figure the rest, but as Axel's googling aptly demonstrated,
Internet is full of idiots, and the "right" knowledge just drowns
in the noise.
I always send vendors to
Which is not an optimal way to document. It is essentially a tribal
Mind if I file a bug against kernel-doc "Document path to correct
correct module headers"?
More information about the devel